BigBallinStalin wrote:Should we "draw lines in the sand" and group people by the color of their skin?

Why should such concepts as race and "black" and "white" be perpetuated?

Would trying "not to see color" be good or bad?

Shit, that would be great!(to the last statement)I'm a little bummed that you used my "line in the sand" example though since I thought I made it clear that skin color had nothing to do with my definition. "Black" is just a throwback of a name that unfortunately is still widely used. I plead When in Rome.

/ wrote:It is true that race can be useful in narrowing down the genetic traits prevalent among certain people. Skin color is one part of that, as was mentioned, it determines the metabolization and resistance against sunlight, and on the inside humans have been narrowed down to many more strengths and weaknesses from generations of their lifestyles; the tolerance or intolerance to certain foods, lung capacity based on environment, disease resistance and vulnerabilities, differences in metabolizing drugs and foods, bone density, even the size of noses makes some difference.

I would say that there is not enough data to say conclusively what factors are genetic race, and what factors are racial culture (traditional diets, teachings, efficiency of languages, desirability of certain goals, etc), but being born as a "stereotypically cultured" person probably does have significant impact on the end result because of the culmination of said factors.

Are you relying on circular reasoning? (sincerely, I'm not sure)

In other words, let's 'use race in order to narrow down genetic traits among certain people' (But how did we single out this group of certain people? By a priori calling them race X)?

....

Either way, let's move beyond that, and 'compile a list of people along physical and physiological characteristics such as A, B, C, D, and E.' Group A would have rank highly in A, B, C; Group B would rank highly in C, D, E; Group C would rank highly in A, C, E; etc. So, we have groups that are similar in some respects, but differ in others--and this could be the case for 80% of the sample whose skin color = "black," yet of that 80%, they can differ extraordinarily in other characteristics.

For most who adhere to stereotypes, I don't think the other characteristics really matter to them. They'll simply continue "calling a spade a spade" but only because they don't know any better; it's simply cheaper for them to categorize people on one simple common characteristic, "black."---regardless of the facts.

The same goes for cultural characteristics, but I'd expect most to rely on cognitive bias (confirmation bias), thus perpetuating this concept of race, of "black," etc.

I'm sorry, I'm not very coherent today, by "stereotypically cultured" I was trying to get across that people of certain lineages have an average standard of tradition that most in that culture adhere to, for example, the “Stereotypical Tibetan” person is genetically diverse from the Han Chinese, lives in high altitudes common to the region, follows traditions and teachings common to their region such as Tibetan Buddhism, and eats cuisine heavy in barley, dairy, and mustard seed.Ethnic Tibetans living in Tibet are known to have high levels of nitric oxide, increased blood flow, and easier metabolization in high altitudes than a foreigner who moves to Tibet. Whether this is caused solely by environment, or if it includes genetics and other factors as well is being researched, but whatever the cause; it would be a factual statement to say the average Tibetan is more suited to a high altitude than the average person globally.

i haven't read much of the thread but i'd like to address part of the OP...

PLAYER57832 wrote:Another bias is when men create the tests and just innately consider "male" type thinking to be superior. This is far more subtle and complicated. It has been well studied. The impact is changing because girls and boys now have more equal education than they did in the past, but at the highest assessement levels there is apparently still a bias that has to do with those tests heavily targeting a kind of specific linear thinking.

if you knew anything about IQ distribution, you'd know that the mean IQ's of males and females is the same. IQ variance, however, is higher among males. that is why most geniuses are male. most profoundly retarded people are also male, but you never hear about them.

natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?

Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"

Army of GOD wrote:Like I said, it doesn't work on an individual scale. Saying all blacks are more athletic than whites is stupid and racist. Saying, on average, blacks are more athletic isn't. Is it coincidence that like 85% of basketball players are black? How Peyton Hillis is the only what running back and how only slot receivers are white? What about the saying "white men can't jump"?

Is it a coincidence that the American basketball team always dominates all the non-American teams during the Olympics? I think not; therefore, the Americans are intrinsically more athletic than non-Americans.

Let me introduce you to my friend logical fallacy. I think you two would make a great pair. I'm sure you've already met.

Aren't you homogenizing individuals, who might not share the exact same (or general set of) characteristics, into one group (e.g. "black" or "white")?

I used "American" v. "Non-American." You used "black" v. "white." Obviously, mine is false, but by analogy, the black v. white is false for similar reasons.

(1)So... what does it mean to be "black" (or, "American")? Is it some set of genes? Is it merely skin color? Or is there such an exact thing?If it's genetic, then what type of genes are generally held by whites and by blacks (Am. v. Non-Am, and etc.)? (Then what about children from interracial couples? How shall they be lumped into the homogenous groupings of black v. white?)

If you can't answer these, then you should be skeptical about your hypothesis, and this criticism applies to the following as well:

I stopped here just because I need to make it clear that I am skeptical of my own hypothesis. Like I said, I'm only saying what I'm saying in this thread as if someone put a gun to my head and demanded an answer. I have no scientific backing for my opinion, just pure observation.

I probably didn't make that incredibly clear in my first few posts, but I know my argument is very fallible. I'd go deeper, but I'm in a bus full of rugby players on our way to Buffalo so titties

Last edited by Army of GOD on Fri Oct 05, 2012 11:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

yes, I suppose so, is that your criticism of categorizations based on common lines of characteristics?The fact is that many divergences we call "Races" have been genetically isolated for literally tens of thousands of years.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_gene ... n_geneticsDo you believe that having words to acknowledge these divides is somehow wrong? Dachshunds are known to have complications related to their short legs and long spinal columns, Bulldogs are known to have a 73.9% occurrence rate of Hip dysplasia, they're both dogs, is it wrong to draw differences between the two and take precautions against the problems they are likely to face?

/ wrote:Do you believe that having words to acknowledge these divides is somehow wrong? Dachshunds are known to have complications related to their short legs and long spinal columns, Bulldogs are known to have a 73.9% occurrence rate of Hip dysplasia, they're both dogs, is it wrong to draw differences between the two and take precautions against the problems they are likely to face?

These breeds are as such because they were over bred to gain certain characteristics and therefore have a significantly high chance of certain health problems, arguably more significant than any person of a certain background. You can also get a Bulldog who doesn't doesn't ever develop hip dysplasia, as your data points out. Should you treat it like it will get hip displasia before it does or should you treat it like any other dog until the vet finds a problem?

/ wrote:Do you believe that having words to acknowledge these divides is somehow wrong? Dachshunds are known to have complications related to their short legs and long spinal columns, Bulldogs are known to have a 73.9% occurrence rate of Hip dysplasia, they're both dogs, is it wrong to draw differences between the two and take precautions against the problems they are likely to face?

These breeds are as such because they were over bred to gain certain characteristics and therefore have a significantly high chance of certain health problems, arguably more significant than any person of a certain background. You can also get a Bulldog who doesn't doesn't ever develop hip dysplasia, as your data points out. Should you treat it like it will get hip displasia before it does or should you treat it like any other dog until the vet finds a problem?

True, I was using it as a comparison to the many testable and preventable genetic diseases in humans that should not be ignored.Also hip dysplasia can be prevented with a proper diet, so yes, if one has a bulldog I would recommend paying stricter attention to its weight than normal.

/ wrote:Also hip dysplasia can be prevented with a proper diet, so yes, if one has a bulldog I would recommend paying stricter attention to its weight than normal.

Very solid point, "/". It should be noted, however, that any overweight dog is more susceptible to health problems than one that isn't. Does that bring us back to where we started in regards to treating the bulldog like any other dog?

Funkyterrance wrote:Very solid point, "/". It should be noted, however, that any overweight dog is more susceptible to health problems than one that isn't. Does that bring us back to where we started in regards to treating the bulldog like any other dog?

To an extent, but having identified a likely problem limits it slightly more than general dog fitness, muscle strengthening exercises such as running and swimming are recommended, while activities that could strain joints such as Frisbee or jumping should not be undertaken with such breeds.

You know, I wish woodruff were here to see this. This is just proof that an argument doesn't inherently need to escalate to the point of name calling and stonewalling. A selection of people discussing a sensitive subject without calling one another "bitch" or "fucktard"; who knew it was possible? I can't believe that any of us have all that much in common that we will completely and wholeheartedly agree to anything, but isn't this nice? Hell, I could admit to being completely wrong on this one if it so developed and it wouldn't hurt one bit. Group hug, guys?

Funkyterrance wrote:You know, I wish woodruff were here to see this. This is just proof that an argument doesn't inherently need to escalate to the point of name calling and stonewalling. A selection of people discussing a sensitive subject without calling one another "bitch" or "fucktard"; who knew it was possible? I can't believe that any of us have all that much in common that we will completely and wholeheartedly agree to anything, but isn't this nice? Hell, I could admit to being completely wrong on this one if it so developed and it wouldn't hurt one bit. Group hug, guys?

I recently had a FB chat about gay marriage, which garnered 414 comments. Even some people from this site participated.

I don't think there were any names called, surely not a single one to me or by me. It truly was a great feeling, and I think we all felt it. The thing to remember here is one bad apple spoils the bunch. So when you come across a rotten apple, throw it in the garbage and never look back!

It's also possible the conversation only went smoothly because certain people are not here.

john9blue wrote:i haven't read much of the thread but i'd like to address part of the OP...

PLAYER57832 wrote:Another bias is when men create the tests and just innately consider "male" type thinking to be superior. This is far more subtle and complicated. It has been well studied. The impact is changing because girls and boys now have more equal education than they did in the past, but at the highest assessement levels there is apparently still a bias that has to do with those tests heavily targeting a kind of specific linear thinking.

if you knew anything about IQ distribution, you'd know that the mean IQ's of males and females is the same. IQ variance, however, is higher among males. that is why most geniuses are male. most profoundly retarded people are also male, but you never hear about them.

First, I was talking history, and women (along with non-whites) absolutely were misjudged by misguided tests in the past. Beyond that, the explanation you provide is not universally accepted. There are a lot of questions over why the patterns that are seen happen....if its, for example, that more males get tested or if there is some innate bias. I don't believe there is a definitive answer, except that how these tests are used and when is more refined. The fact that you threw out that bit about "you hear of the top end, but not the bottom".. is just wrong. One thing we do know, there is not the direct correlation between success and IQ that was once thought would exist.

When you touch on "What is IQ", then its also good to look at models of various types of intelligence. A LOT of people think those kinds of more comprehensive analysis give a far better picture than IQ.

Army of GOD wrote:Like I said, it doesn't work on an individual scale. Saying all blacks are more athletic than whites is stupid and racist. Saying, on average, blacks are more athletic isn't. Is it coincidence that like 85% of basketball players are black? How Peyton Hillis is the only what running back and how only slot receivers are white? What about the saying "white men can't jump"?

The basic question is whether blacks actually ARE more atheletic overall.

You cite several famous atheletes, but are they truly representative of the black population as a whole? Timminz mentioned one point, that even pretty recently, sports has been one of the few avenues "out" of poverty for many kids in the black community. At a time when the only blacks you really saw who were not drug dealers were athletes or pop stars, the idea of being a Wallstreet executive, etc just was not that popular. Similarly, those who went into biology tended to go into medicine, not natural resource studies. Attorneys was another "push" job..(a job parents would point to and say "go for that", don't follow my track).

So, is it really that blacks are more atheletic or is it just that those blacks you see, even today tend to be more the athletes?

Army of GOD wrote:Like I said, it doesn't work on an individual scale. Saying all blacks are more athletic than whites is stupid and racist. Saying, on average, blacks are more athletic isn't. Is it coincidence that like 85% of basketball players are black? How Peyton Hillis is the only what running back and how only slot receivers are white? What about the saying "white men can't jump"?

Is it a coincidence that the American basketball team always dominates all the non-American teams during the Olympics? I think not; therefore, the Americans are intrinsically more athletic than non-Americans.

Let me introduce you to my friend logical fallacy. I think you two would make a great pair. I'm sure you've already met.

Aren't you homogenizing individuals, who might not share the exact same (or general set of) characteristics, into one group (e.g. "black" or "white")?

I used "American" v. "Non-American." You used "black" v. "white." Obviously, mine is false, but by analogy, the black v. white is false for similar reasons.

(1)So... what does it mean to be "black" (or, "American")? Is it some set of genes? Is it merely skin color? Or is there such an exact thing?If it's genetic, then what type of genes are generally held by whites and by blacks (Am. v. Non-Am, and etc.)? (Then what about children from interracial couples? How shall they be lumped into the homogenous groupings of black v. white?)

If you can't answer these, then you should be skeptical about your hypothesis, and this criticism applies to the following as well:

I stopped here just because I need to make it clear that I am skeptical of my own hypothesis. Like I said, I'm only saying what I'm saying in this thread as if someone put a gun to my head and demanded an answer. I have no scientific backing for my opinion, just pure observation.

I probably didn't make that incredibly clear in my first few posts, but I know my argument is very fallible. I'd go deeper, but I'm in a bus full of rugby players on our way to Buffalo so titties

[AoG's bus drives down the road]

[BBS runs out to the middle, raises his fist, and screams, "DAMN YOU, AOG!!!!"]

yes, I suppose so, is that your criticism of categorizations based on common lines of characteristics?The fact is that many divergences we call "Races" have been genetically isolated for literally tens of thousands of years.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_gene ... n_geneticsDo you believe that having words to acknowledge these divides is somehow wrong? Dachshunds are known to have complications related to their short legs and long spinal columns, Bulldogs are known to have a 73.9% occurrence rate of Hip dysplasia, they're both dogs, is it wrong to draw differences between the two and take precautions against the problems they are likely to face?

For reasons already stated, there's a lot of ambiguity with "race" and "blacks v. whites."

It's so ambiguous that these kinds of discussions are meaningless unless exact definitions can be clarified.

PLAYER57832 wrote:what constitutes IQ and whether it is an actual indicator of anything .. or whether IQ is really measuring the attribute we think is important (ability to aquire new information readily).

Neoteny wrote:I propose that everyone who has an interest in the scientific inquiry into intelligence or physiology of different "races" are all racist.

To be exempt from this: without using Google, please list three other areas of basic or applied research in the fields of psychology or physiology that you are as knowledgeable about.

:]><

I propose that anyone who has an interest in proving that someone is racist by using untenable exemptions is racist.

To be exempt from this: without using Google, please list three other areas of basic or applied research in the fields of Cyber Communications that you are as knowledgable about.

That's not really equivalent. If I were referencing cyber communications science to support my proposal for labeling racists, then it would be. But it's irrelevant, really. I considered using "biology" and "all science" as my categories too. I decided on specializing it for a reason. If I started a thread about the genesis and growth of Renshaw cells in the developing spinal cord, I might get a post or two of interest, and the thread will quickly fall off the page. But start a thread about something controversial, and suddenly people are impartial investigators furthering the cause of science. But most aren't. Most are promoting religion (evolution), politics (global warming), etc. Of course not everyone is going to have an interest in cord development. But if you don't have a single other interest in a remotely related field, I call bullshit. No one in this forum is going to call me out on Renshaw cells. But if I state that race has an insignificant effect on average body size, suddenly everyone is Sir Science, on her mighty steed, Empiricism, armed with blogs of Truth and Rationality. I sort of just want people to question why they care about these things. If you interested in equality, or fairness, or just plain controversy, fine. But if you are lying to me about how you are for "sound science" or whatever, I have to question why you really care.

Neoteny wrote:I propose that everyone who has an interest in the scientific inquiry into intelligence or physiology of different "races" are all racist.

To be exempt from this: without using Google, please list three other areas of basic or applied research in the fields of psychology or physiology that you are as knowledgeable about.

:]><

I propose that anyone who has an interest in proving that someone is racist by using untenable exemptions is racist.

To be exempt from this: without using Google, please list three other areas of basic or applied research in the fields of Cyber Communications that you are as knowledgable about.

That's not really equivalent. If I were referencing cyber communications science to support my proposal for labeling racists, then it would be. But it's irrelevant, really. I considered using "biology" and "all science" as my categories too. I decided on specializing it for a reason. If I started a thread about the genesis and growth of Renshaw cells in the developing spinal cord, I might get a post or two of interest, and the thread will quickly fall off the page. But start a thread about something controversial, and suddenly people are impartial investigators furthering the cause of science. But most aren't. Most are promoting religion (evolution), politics (global warming), etc. Of course not everyone is going to have an interest in cord development. But if you don't have a single other interest in a remotely related field, I call bullshit. No one in this forum is going to call me out on Renshaw cells. But if I state that race has an insignificant effect on average body size, suddenly everyone is Sir Science, on her mighty steed, Empiricism, armed with blogs of Truth and Rationality. I sort of just want people to question why they care about these things. If you interested in equality, or fairness, or just plain controversy, fine. But if you are lying to me about how you are for "sound science" or whatever, I have to question why you really care.

*sigh* I'll be less subtle. I thought using the phrase "Cyber Communications" would hint at "The Holy Trinity of Internet Communications," and that the false equivalance argument was obvious enough.

But you do bring up some great points. Yes, people presume knowledge over which they don't know (e.g. economics, BBS). However, there's several ways to address this problem. Two of which are: (1) Encourage people to use different analytical frameworks for understanding causal relationships, or (2) try to shut down the inquiry while labeling people racist.

I opt for #1 by using the econometric way of thinking. You've regrettably opted for #2, which in my opinion is not at all productive/useful because it still leaves people wondering about those causal relationships. At least with the #1 approach, I provide some people the means for framing such questions in order to become more skeptical about their personal observations and the conclusions which they ponder.

Hopefully, that clears up the confusion. RE: your last sentence, Sure, many scientists don't view inquiries about race as decent, but that in no way contributes to the public discourse. Many (even scientists) adhere to th pretense of knowledge, but at least many are willing to understand through questions and argument. Side-stepping and/or undercuttnig the entire debate fails to undermine the sources of racism through idea creation in the non-scientific spheres. I'm tackling this problem, and you're essentially calling people racists (which isn't nearly as useful). It's almost as useless as Symmetry's approach of calling people idiots.

Last edited by BigBallinStalin on Mon Oct 08, 2012 2:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.